Harjot Singh Alias Labha Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Harjot Singh Alias Labha Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Harjot Singh alias Labha, arraigned in FIR No.361 dated 04.12.2025 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 and 109 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 341, 506, 148, 149, 307 IPC), Police Station Division no.5, Ludhiana, is entitled to regular bail sought under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, given parity with co-accused already enlarged on bail, completion of investigation and challan, framing of charges, and the prospect of a delayed trial (none of 18 prosecution witnesses examined). +1 more

Court's answer

Admitted parity weighed in the petitioner's favour: co-accused Sukhjinder Singh and Harmandeep Singh @ Harry had already been granted the concession of regular bail vide orders dated 02.04.2026 and 24.04.2026 (Annexures P-3 and P-4).

Ratio / Principle

Since investigation is complete, the challan stands presented, charges were framed on 24.02.2026 and none of the 18 prosecution witnesses has been examined, the Court inferred that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time and held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an uncertain period.

Key takeaways

Continued detention would violate the right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court reiterating that bail is a rule and jail an exception, while relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Dataram Singh (2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131).ratio¶32
The right to speedy trial is part of the reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 and cannot be denied to the accused, as is the mandate of the Apex Court in Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another, SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024.ratio¶46
The State's habitual-offender objection did not prevail: learned State Counsel prayed for dismissal on that ground but did not controvert the petitioner's parity with the co-accused persons already granted regular bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail — S.483 BNSS, 2023 — parity with co-accused — speedy trial, Art. 21. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Sandeep Moudgil, J.), 09.06.2026, CRM-M-28324-2026: allowed regular bail to Harjot Singh alias Labha, accused in FIR No.361 dated 04.12.2025 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190, 109 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 341, 506, 148, 149, 307 IPC 1860), PS Division no.5, Ludhiana. Grounds: (i) admitted parity — co-accused Sukhjinder Singh and Harmandeep Singh @ Harry already bailed vide orders dated 02.04.2026 and 24.04.2026 in CRM-M-16087-2026 and CRM-M-21518-2026; (ii) investigation complete, challan presented, charges framed 24.02.2026, none of 18 prosecution witnesses examined, so trial expected to take considerable time; (iii) petitioner in custody about 6 months; (iv) State's habitual-offender objection did not controvert parity. Relied on Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 (bail is a rule, jail an exception) and Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024 (Art. 21 speedy trial). Release directed on bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate; observations expressly not an opinion on merits.

CRM-M-28324-2026

-1-

204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-28324-2026 DECIDED ON: 09.06.2026

HARJOT SINGH ALIAS LABHA

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB

.....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present: Mr. Vishavjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (through Hybrid Mode)

Mr. Yatin Bunger, AAG Punjab

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.361, Dated 04.12.2025, Under Section 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 191 (3), 190, 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding to Section 323, 341, 506, 148, 149, 307 of Indian Penal Code 1860), Police Station Division no.5, District Ludhiana (Punjab).

2. Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is stated to be at par to the co-accused persons namely Sukhjinder Singh

MEENU 2026.06.09 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-28324-2026

-2-

& Harmandeep Singh @ Harry who have already been granted the concession of regular bail vide orders dated 02.04.2026 & 24.04.2026 (Annexures P-3 & P-4 respecively) passed in CRM-M-16087-2026 & CRM-M-21518-2026 respectively. He further submits that investigation in the matter is complete, challan stands presented and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars.

On behalf of the State

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 6 months.

Learned State Counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in another case. However, he does not controvert the fact that the petitioner is at par with the above-said co-accused persons, who have already been granted the concession of regular bail.

3. Analysis

Considering the fact that admittedly the co-accused persons namely Sukhjinder Singh & Harmandeep Singh @ Harry who have already been granted the concession of regular bail vide orders dated 02.04.2026 & 24.04.2026 (Annexures P-3 & P-4 respecively); and the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented, charges have been framed on 24.02.2026 and out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, which is sufficient for this Court to infer that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, therefore, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for uncertain period, wherein “ bail is a rule and jail is an

MEENU 2026.06.09 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-28324-2026

-3-

exception” and it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and

MEENU 2026.06.09 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-28324-2026

-4-

expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658

6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.

7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.”

MEENU 2026.06.09 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-28324-2026

-5-

Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in “ Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, SLP

(Crl.) No.8523/2024. Relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:-

“7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in “The Ballad of Reading Gaol”, wrote the following poignant lines while being incarcerated:

“I know not whether Laws be right,

Or whether Laws be wrong; All that we know who be in jail

Is that the wall is strong; And that each day is like a year, A year whose days are long.”

4. Relief:

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.

However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 09.06.2026 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No

MEENU 2026.06.09 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document